Only valid for active forum users. Active means at least 30 postings within the last 30 days (no spam postings). This will automatically being checked at www.starbike.com shopping basket so make sure that you are logged in at the WW board!If there does not appear a WW discount position when you check out you do not have enough postings!

prendrefeu, I'm afraid that sounds normal to me, but I guess working with carbon on a day to day basis I suppose that it might. I'm still putting the Rolo right up there, but I'll leave the 'tech' description for you to use

Yep, a bit of what btompkins pointed out. I do believe Cervelo has brilliant engineers and innovations... but, just looking at the evolution of the BB standards, Cervelo/Rotor develop BBRight which is an "open standard" (even though no other frame manufacturer has picked it up beyond Open despite how many years it's been out there) and yet shortly after BBRight comes out BB386 gets released and from the start does everything that BBRight *should* have done but fell just short of doing (see below). But, stubbornly, BBRight is "right" apparently and Cervelo refuses to evolve just a weee, tiny, tiny bit and use the BB386 standard instead.

When I (personally) look at the underside of a Cervelo and the BBRight system I'm immediately thinking "So you guys couldn't just widen the actual BB shell on the frame evenly and increase frame stiffness while you're at it? Is that too difficult? Really Come on guys."

It sort of reminds me of the time when it was clear that BSA/English threaded bottom brackets were clearly proven to be better than Italian threaded, and many Italian brands made the switch the English threaded but a few stubbornly refused to switch over for idiotic reasons. People and companies trip over their own pride when its in their way. It isn't hard to man-up and admit that circumstances have changed or another brilliant idea is available.

I'm not sure what the obsession is with this. I dont think about my bottom bracket while I'm riding my RCA. Once you install it, and you are reasonable with maintenance, its not something that occupies your mind or you need to fiddle with.

Why all the fascination with Rolo here? I don't know much about them can someone explain why you think they're so special? From the links provided and a brief google it seems they have the same marketing hype as all the rest of the manufacturers and say all the same things, so whats so extra-special? I don't think the frames look particularly nice at all, that head tube/top tube junction is downright hideous. What makes them so special??

For me it's compatibility, mostly. And because I do my own wrenching on all of my bikes, I like the idea of accessibility of parts over the years because it's rare that I'll sell a bike that I've built up and used. If a BB standard isn't picked up by a number of makers, the less likely it will be to find a part in the future.

A metaphor would be if you buy a car and instead of using one of a few standard sizes of fuel pumps, it uses a slightly odd shaped fuel pump that requires a special shim if you'll use another fuel pump. The car maker reasoned that their fuel pump is superior... when, really, it's not any better compared to a different fuel pump that is more standard across manufacturers. Yes, driving the car you won't have a problem. Then one day you'll want (or need) to replace the fuel pump... but, darn it, it's a proprietary fuel pump and not readily available compared to other pumps. If you use another pump, you need a shim which is also hard to find. So you're left paying $$ for an increasingly rare part.

Same issue with Specialized's OSBB vs. BB30. They are not the same, but darn close. Specialized is being stubborn and they just want you to use their own cranks (which are good cranks, but that's not the point). Then there's Cannondale sticking with BB30 and not PF30 - the latter has better manufacturing tolerances, which would also help bring Cannondale's cost of manufacturing down a bit. But, no, Cannondale is also being a bit stubborn on pride. So we as a consumer have to go along with the stubborn pride issues of a brand? That's great.

The next carbon frame I purchase will probably be BB386 because it seems to be the most option compatible while allowing for the increased stiffness and weight loss, but for now it's all reliable BSA. Even a frame I recently spec'd, ordered & received is a reliable BSA frame.

The Vandyke "Nightstream" Road. I know nothing about these bikes other than the paint scheme, but that alone is seduction enough (but cost is always an object).

Rolobikes are interesting. I've never heard of them before this. I worry about their proprietary bottom bracket and, as Prendrefeu notes, parts availability in the future (especially from a boutique firm whose existence might be fleeting) is a concern.

prendrefeu, while it may not be an issue for you personally, your glowing praise of BB386 does not mention the impact of reduced heel clearance, or if cleat or pedal spindle length are adjusted to maintain heel clearance, increased Q-factor.

Just wanted to cast a vote for Cippolini bikes, real high tech bikes really made in Italy coupled with some fantastic marketing - 'Cippolini a Man and His Tool'. SuuuperTooop!, as my Italian relatives say:)

@prendrefeuThe only thing proprietary about Specialized's OSBB is the cups, which increase the frame width to 68mm, and they're required with any BB30 crank, including Specialized's. Otherwise, the bearing size is the same, so no worries there. Also, some Specialized bikes are BB30, where others are PF30. I own 3, and have all 3 types of the mentioned bb "standard." Aren't most Cannondales PF30 now?

The Rolo geo looks a bit strange to me and although its technologically advanced, is one of the fugliest frames I've ever seen. I'd say Felt nailed it over them even from a tech perspective by combining decent weight, good aerodynamics, interesting materials/tech, and made it into a mass-produced semi-affordable package that normal people can afford and have serviced by their LBS.